Quote:What determines whether information is classified?
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

(03-23-2016 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:What determines whether information is classified?
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

You sure your truck wasn't overweight when you were carrying this load?

Your allegiance to one of the dirtiest, scummiest political figures in the last 50 years obviously knows no bounds.

So, Hillary has her subordinates send her the stuff............and she will let them hang in the wind and take the fall for her. Yep, that sounds like a Clinton move.

It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

(03-23-2016 10:10 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:What determines whether information is classified?
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

You sure your truck wasn't overweight when you were carrying this load?

Your allegiance to one of the dirtiest, scummiest political figures in the last 50 years obviously knows no bounds.

So, Hillary has her subordinates send her the stuff............and she will let them hang in the wind and take the fall for her. Yep, that sounds like a Clinton move.

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

No kidding. They run around taking the moral high ground against people that would vote for Trump.................then run back and bow to their dirty Queen. It really is quite amazing, but then - these are the same folks that voted Marion Berry back into to office after being caught on tape snorting coke........................they obviously don't care at all so long as a"D" is next to their name.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot - O.J. was innocent as well - ask them.

(03-23-2016 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:What determines whether information is classified?
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

Remind me again what the above vomitted talking points have to do with Hillary having human intel above top secret born classified information on her unsecure server?

Jail Time.

(03-23-2016 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:What determines whether information is classified?
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

About the magazine/website the article was published in.
No conflict of Interest?

http://prospect.org/about-us
About Us

The American Prospect’s mission is summed up in the phrase “liberal intelligence” that runs under the logo on the magazine’s cover. We aim to advance liberal and progressive goals through reporting, analysis, and debate about today’s realities and tomorrow’s possibilities.

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

the right se(0)ws not what it knows....the left only sews now....

(03-23-2016 10:21 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

No kidding. They run around taking the moral high ground against people that would vote for Trump.................then run back and bow to their dirty Queen. It really is quite amazing, but then - these are the same folks that voted Marion Berry back into to office after being caught on tape snorting coke........................they obviously don't care at all so long as a"D" is next to their name.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot - O.J. was innocent as well - ask them.

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

(03-23-2016 10:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

Show me where he is talking about the born classified higher than top secret human intelligence that was discovered on her unsecure email server. And those other emails that were born classified and so highly classified that the IG had to have his clearance elevated just to examine them. What did that law professor have to say about those?

(03-23-2016 10:10 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:What determines whether information is classified?
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

You sure your truck wasn't overweight when you were carrying this load?

Your allegiance to one of the dirtiest, scummiest political figures in the last 50 years obviously knows no bounds.

WTF does this have to do with me? It's not actually hard starting a thread.

Pathetic fail dude. Considering I've told your dumb ass at least 5 times that I'm a Bernie supporter. Focus on the issue of the thread, and not me, or just STFU.

(03-23-2016 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

Show me where he is talking about the born classified higher than top secret human intelligence that was discovered on her unsecure email server. And those other emails that were born classified and so highly classified that the IG had to have his clearance elevated just to examine them. What did that law professor have to say about those?

** crickets **

(03-23-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:10 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:What determines whether information is classified?
Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made.

These standards make it difficult to conclude that Clinton violated any law regarding the disclosure of classified information. As indicated by the word “may,” which I italicized, the regulations do not require that any information, no matter how sensitive, be classified. They also indicate that when in doubt information should not be classified or should be classified at the lowest level consistent with national security. Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether State Department information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified. Moreover, declassification when done at the highest level appears to require no formal procedure. Indeed, we have a history of high-level officials engaging in “instant declassification,” most notably by leaking classified information to the press for political or strategic advantage. Since the leakers are typically speaking off the record or on deep background, some disclosures may have been made by people lacking the authority to declassify information, instantly or otherwise. No such leaker has been criminally prosecuted, and so long as the authorization to reveal classified information was approved at the cabinet level, it is unlikely that anyone could be.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

You sure your truck wasn't overweight when you were carrying this load?

Your allegiance to one of the dirtiest, scummiest political figures in the last 50 years obviously knows no bounds.

WTF does this have to do with me? It's not actually hard starting a thread.

Pathetic fail dude. Considering I've told your dumb ass at least 5 times that I'm a Bernie supporter. Focus on the issue of the thread, and not me, or just STFU.

(03-23-2016 10:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

If I go out on the internet and post something from a law professor that shows she should be indicted and jailed, would that change your mind?

Hilary was appointed Secretary of State and she immediately set up a private email account and used it for official government business. Hilary’s non-secure email account was maintained by a mom-and-pop operation, not by the Federal government. Some of the email on her account contained Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information.

None of this is debatable.

Additionally, it's universally understood that she exposed classified information to foreign intelligence services and not even you believe she didn't write, view and forward classified information via this non-secure email.

She deserves her day in court, of course. But the fact that Democrats ignore the above egregious flaunting of laws and best practices because it more important to elect a woman to the White House says something quite noxious about liberals. By claiming Hillary has done no wrong liberals are really signaling that being liberal is more important than the rule of law.

Run with that and the embarrassment it brings your party.

Every attorney is at heart an advocate. This advocacy can be established via a client-attorney relationship or a more singular approach based upon ideology and opinion.

Therefore any presentation should be viewed as "one side of the story." I'd be surprised if there isn't a professor of law who would interpret the statutes differently than the author argued.

To suggest that one argument is right above all others, is inconsistent with the simple fact of the number of 5-4 decisions reached in the Supreme Court.

(03-23-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

If I go out on the internet and post something from a law professor that shows she should be indicted and jailed, would that change your mind?

Hilary was appointed Secretary of State and she immediately set up a private email account and used it for official government business. Hilary’s non-secure email account was maintained by a mom-and-pop operation, not by the Federal government. Some of the email on her account contained Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information.

None of this is debatable.

Additionally, it's universally understood that she exposed classified information to foreign intelligence services and not even you believe she didn't write, view and forward classified information via this non-secure email.

She deserves her day in court, of course. But the fact that Democrats ignore the above egregious flaunting of laws and best practices because it more important to elect a woman to the White House says something quite noxious about liberals. By claiming Hillary has done no wrong liberals are really signaling that being liberal is more important than the rule of law.

Run with that and the embarrassment it brings your party.

(03-23-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

If I go out on the internet and post something from a law professor that shows she should be indicted and jailed, would that change your mind?

Hilary was appointed Secretary of State and she immediately set up a private email account and used it for official government business. Hilary’s non-secure email account was maintained by a mom-and-pop operation, not by the Federal government. Some of the email on her account contained Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information.

None of this is debatable.

Additionally, it's universally understood that she exposed classified information to foreign intelligence services and not even you believe she didn't write, view and forward classified information via this non-secure email.

She deserves her day in court, of course. But the fact that Democrats ignore the above egregious flaunting of laws and best practices because it more important to elect a woman to the White House says something quite noxious about liberals. By claiming Hillary has done no wrong liberals are really signaling that being liberal is more important than the rule of law.

Run with that and the embarrassment it brings your party.

Remember All of those trial Lawyers that donate to the DNC. They are some of Her biggest fans !

(03-23-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

If I go out on the internet and post something from a law professor that shows she should be indicted and jailed, would that change your mind?

Hilary was appointed Secretary of State and she immediately set up a private email account and used it for official government business. Hilary’s non-secure email account was maintained by a mom-and-pop operation, not by the Federal government. Some of the email on her account contained Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information.

None of this is debatable.

Additionally, it's universally understood that she exposed classified information to foreign intelligence services and not even you believe she didn't write, view and forward classified information via this non-secure email.

She deserves her day in court, of course. But the fact that Democrats ignore the above egregious flaunting of laws and best practices because it more important to elect a woman to the White House says something quite noxious about liberals. By claiming Hillary has done no wrong liberals are really signaling that being liberal is more important than the rule of law.

Run with that and the embarrassment it brings your party.

Every single top secret/classified email went through her illegal email server scheme. She never set up an approved government email account.
And she did it on purpose.

(03-23-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It says something about Democratic voters that they are not ashamed that their party’s front-runner belongs in jail for exposing classified information.

And what does it say about you, seemingly ignoring a law professor with experience at Homeland Security telling you that she doesn't belong in jail, but yet you insist it anyway?

If I go out on the internet and post something from a law professor that shows she should be indicted and jailed, would that change your mind?

It might. And it'd be a refreshing change from the pseudo-law/security clearance experts that normally post here who continually insist they know everything.

(03-23-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Hilary was appointed Secretary of State and she immediately set up a private email account and used it for official government business. Hilary’s non-secure email account was maintained by a mom-and-pop operation, not by the Federal government. Some of the email on her account contained Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information.

None of this is debatable.

Additionally, it's universally understood that she exposed classified information to foreign intelligence services and not even you believe she didn't write, view and forward classified information via this non-secure email.

She deserves her day in court, of course. But the fact that Democrats ignore the above egregious flaunting of laws and best practices because it more important to elect a woman to the White House says something quite noxious about liberals. By claiming Hillary has done no wrong liberals are really signaling that being liberal is more important than the rule of law.

Run with that and the embarrassment it brings your party.

And nobody is ignoring anything. If it weren't' for this, she'd be a huge favorite in November and Bernie would have been cast aside months ago.

And finally, it's not my party. I'm not a Democrat.